The standard Keynesian line is that the government can shorten recessions by using fiscal and monetary “stimulus.” However, as Austrian economists note, ratcheting up government spending only makes things worse, setting the stage for the next economic downturn.
A central doctrine of the Keynesian system is the “liquidity trap” in which consumers hold money in anticipation of higher interest rates. The act of holding money allegedly promotes “underconsumption,” continuing the economic downturn. This doctrine, however, cannot withstand scrutiny.
The Federal Reserve says it can manipulate the money supply to ensure “price stability.” This worsens the boom-bust cycles and undermines the economy.
The Federal Reserve and so-called government stabilizers exist ostensibly to balance a market economy that supposedly is fundamentally unstable. But what if government intervention itself causes the instability?
Perhaps John Maynard Keynes' best con job was convincing people that a growing economy needs inflation, lots of inflation. As David Gordon points out, however, Ludwig von Mises eloquently explained why inflation undermines the free market economy.
Can an increase in the supply of gold cause a boom-bust cycle? Mises believed it was theoretically possible but highly unlikely. Rothbard, on the other hand, said as long as gold is money and there is no fiduciary media, such a scenario was not possible.
One of the fallacies pushed by monetary economists is that a growing economy needs a growing supply of money in order to prevent deflation, which they claim is as harmful as inflation. However, as Austrians point out, there is no “optimum” amount of money in the economy, since prices adjust.
In replying to a previous article by Frank Shostak, Douglas French writes that if an increase in the supply of gold ultimately leads to an expansion of bank credit, that is enough to start the boom-and-bust cycles, even if there is no central bank to accelerate the process.
A central doctrine of the Keynesian system is the “liquidity trap” in which consumers hold money in anticipation of higher interest rates. The act of holding money allegedly promotes “underconsumption,” continuing the economic downturn. This doctrine, however, cannot withstand scrutiny.
For nearly 30 years, the Fed has pursued an easy-money policy that has made the economy increasingly dependent upon the next round of “stimulus.” Reversing that policy will mean, at least in the short run, a stiff recession before the economy rebounds, which is a non-starter today.
